tv [untitled] June 15, 2012 8:30am-9:00am PDT
one that will handle those items and one that will just deal with the budget. ok? so -- are we clear now? ok. thank you. >> i understand it is not a legal requirement. i'm making a request that we may have a description of what we're not doing, that we used to do with these categorical funds. i understand it is not a requirement of the law but i would like and i think the public would like to know that and i would like to public to know that. >> i support that notion. let's get that down. let's move on at this point. we're good, right? so as i said, we are not taking any action on this item. we're going to move to -- i want
to announce the following initial proposals. number one, 2011-2012 initial proposal for a successor contract from the san francisco unified school district to the civil service classified bargainanning units of local 6, 22, 38, 39, 40rks66, 104, 261, 377, 718, 85 3,1176 and 1414. number two, 2011-2005 initial proposal for a successor contract from the sheet metal workers' international association local 104. number three, 2011, 2012, initial proposal for a successor to contract from the united association of journeymen and apprentices of the plumbing and pipe fitting industry, local 38.
public hearing on these proposals will be held at the regular board meeting on june 26, 2012. item michigan? >> i just want to make a disclosure. we don't believe any longer i have a financial conflict with the contract for building trade with the ironworkers because my husband is not an official with the union anymore but just for full disclosure for the board and the public, he is a member of that union and the conditions of the contract would apply to him but i have no financial interest in it. >> thank you. >> item m, discussion of other educational issues tonight. none tonight. item n, consent calendar resolution removed at previous meetings for a second reading and action. none tonight. item o vote on consent calendar, moved and seconded under section
f. roll call, please. >> consent calendar vote. >> yes. sorry. >> miss tom? >> yes. >> thank you. misfewer? >> yes. >> miss mendoza? >> yes, except on items 11, 23, 33 and 34. >> thank you. miss norton? >> aye. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> mr. yee. thank you. >> item p, consent calendar resolutions severed severed for board discussion and immediate action, that would be -- jill?
>> thank you. i just wanted to -- i don't have a problem with this. what i do have a problem with is if you read the description here, you can tell this description was written by the people who designed and owned this program. and we had a similar issue with the teach for america. i understand that it is easy for our staff people to just lift the language out of the promotional materials for the people with whom they make contracts, i'm just requesting that we try review for that and try sk them not to do that. -- ask them not to do that. these are legal documents that we votes on and pass saying this is the best program there is. if our staff wants to assert that and ask us to vote for that, great. but it is clear that this is
unrelated to their performance in this school district. it is more the description of the people who designed the program and their commercial products, they own them. you know, i'm asking this be changed. i just want us to pay attention to that. thank you. >> point well taken. will do. >> any other comments? roll call, please? >> miss tom? >> yes. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss maufas? >> yes. >> miss norton? >> aye. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> k 18? commissioner fewer? commissioner fewer:thank you, president yee. this is a about going into a contract with a consult and to help us with their real estate
transactions and i'm consulting. now i am -- i was concerned about this last year because i think it would be better for district to actually hire their own in house real estate person. i just think, you know, we have someone full time that has some institutional memory also about real estate transactions and actually not to be a consultant but to be part of our team and represent us instead of an outside agency doing so. i realize that this is for $65,000 and i think deputy superintendent said if we were to hire someone full time for this position, it may cost $141,000, i believe. so i would just like to discuss this perhaps for a couple of minutes about what is the best use of this $65,000 where we put it toward a person that works
full time for us or toward a consultant which is on a part time basis? we will be having many more real estate transaction coming up and i think also it will be helpful to have an extra person on hand to actually coordinate with our legal department around pending real estate transactions and since the funding or the proceeds from the sale of real property, i think we do have that little bit of extra money to put it toward a full time position that they could actually be full time staff working with us. >> any comments? any other comments? commissioner maufas? commissioner maufas:thank you, president i guess i have more of a follow up of what commissioner
murase was saying. must we pay that high an amount? maybe, you know, we can find somebody. it is a tough economic market out there. but i would like to see if that is doable in some regard. maybe the person is not full time. maybe just a quarter time. but with a large knowledge base that is still an encyclopedia available to us. i would also like to second the possibility of exploring what we could do with that money if we -- we do pretty well withing two dollars that we have available to us. various efficiently and effectively. i would like to see it apply here as well. >> commissioner norton?
commissioner norton: i actually think -- i like the idea of exploring sort of different ways to fill this function. i think, you know, i think it is really important that we have someone with real estate expertise and deep knowledge of the markets. that kind of favors an outside person. i also, you know, it does bother me that we're contracting the cbre and they are getting paid a nice contract for their services to us and then on top of that realizing profit from, you know,
agreed to reduce their commission a little bit. that is, i think -- it is a little problematic to me that they are getting paid, we have a contract with them and they are getting commissions on -- at market rates. so i just -- i'm prepared to support this for this year, i do think that this should be part of a larger discussion that the board has about what are we really -- where are we going with our real estate function? is this still the best way to do this? is there a better way to do this? what kind of person at what salary would we look at doing this if we brought it back in house? >> can i make one more -- i'm looking at their dates of ssts don't start until july 1 -- services don't start until july 1. we have one more important meeting. is there a possibility that we could have some more discussion about this and get more information, i believe i overheard the commissioner mumble that we might consider an r.f.p. process. i believe there would be a significant response that would beg us to reconsider. if not, that's what i'm putting
on the table. there is also a question about our timing of this and if not as r.f.p. process, which takes a significant amount of time to go through, i get that, but i would like to have that for board discussion before the next regularly scheduled board meeting, which we have one at the end of june. so this particular contractor and i'm ready to support this. but i would like them to be on notice that we as a board are exploring another option and i think it should go out and we should see the response before we really commit ourselves to somebody who is regularly with us. and that's not just -- i'm looking at you deputy si superintendent lee but also looking at our incoming superintendent and outgoing superintendent. i think an r.f.p. process would
be an excellent way to go about this and i think the response would be considering the fiscal climate. thank you. >> first of all, i need to point this out to the board. several years ago we eliminated this position because of cuts. our redepartment in this school district has been asked to cut now, what are we up to 20%? >> probably -- 5% incremental for the next year. >> right. on top of what we have been asked to cuts and more for next year because everybody is having to cut. yeah, in an ideal world, it would be nice to have a full time person that would do that, but when you add benefits and so forth, that's what raises it. the other thing is -- correct me if i'm wrong, though. didn't we have an r.f.p. when we originally put this out? >> yes thambings two years ago. we did -- that was two years ago.
we had multiresponses. i believe three firms were interviewed. i think he participated in that process. cpre was the selected firm and since the selection took place two years ago, as a staff team, we have found them to be quite effective in meeting our needs. so -- >> i don't mean to interrupt but i would like to make some comments after you're finished. >> i just wanted to emphasize to the board that we have thought through the feedback that you provided on this issue and have taken a good faith attempt to try to think through whether there are other alternatives. we continue to believe after having gone through that, that thought process that this is still reflected in the fact that we're bringing it forward as a recommendation. we have made a lot of progress
in this whole arena over the last couple of years. it was something we heard about justifybly and for good reason from the board as something that we needed to pay more attention to and have a more professional level of expertise. we think we have done that and we're not all the way there but we're getting there and i think there is a track record that we're building that demonstrates the improvement in our ability to strategicically manage our real property assets. and it is not that cb rench or any consult apt is the driving force behind that, but it is an important resource for us as our staff team to have at our disposal. it is partly for cost effectiveness, but it ises also reflecting the resources available to a professional real estate firm with professional real estate expertise. not just an individual but with the analytical knowledge and all
of the research knowledge that is available through a firm, we think it is actually a much better fit in terms of meeting our needs through this mechanism than through having a staff person, whether it is part time or full time dedicated on the district's team per se, that has been our experience. we have tried it both ways. and we have had very different results. so we're happy to explore more. we're happy to continue to, you know, answer questions that you might have, but i will say that i think to a person all of the members of a team that have been working on this whole arena feel pretty strongly that this is -- this configuration is going to suit the district's interest as well as or better than what we had before. >> so thank you, deputy superintendent garcia. i respectfully push back a
little bit on the superintendent because i know everybody is supposed to cut back. i believe that we have somebody working for us full time in the real estate capacity that can more than pay for the money that we may be getting, the revenue that we may be getting could more than pay for a full time person. i understand expertise. we could always seek expertise. it doesn't mean this doesn't prohibit us from getting expertise from a real estate firm. it just means that we would have our own full time person, for example, i have attended many meetings now and i think it would be fabulous to have someone who is knowledgeable about real estate on our team as one of our team players and i think actually it could be -- a cost benefit to the district having somebody on our real estate and looking at our real
estate and how best we can use our real estate working for us full time. i am -- so i differ from my colleagues. i am not prepared to support this tonight because i think there is a better way to do this. i think in my judgment fiscaly, it would be more important to put a little bit more money in now but to realize that this could be also revenue-generating for the district and better use of our real estate too. i understand that c.b. richard ellison, i have to say they like the consultant they have given us. he is fabulous. we have a positive and productive working relationship, but i think it is time that we own the person that does the real estate and that they have our interests in the forefront and they are directly for us and for our interests.
so thank you, deputy superintendent. >> what i would like to do is make clear a vote of affirmative on this. a vote for cpre is not going out to bid. roll-call, please. student delegate tom: yes. commissioner fewer: no. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner mendoza: yes. commissioner murase: aye. vice president norton: yes. commissioner wynns: aye. president yee: aye. i would like to say that, although we passed this year, i am hearing enough interest on the board for next year, we may consider bidding again to see
what kind of results we can get. then we can have a better dialogue around that. i would like to pass the facilities committee. to have some discussion on this issue. >> i know this was brought up in the building and grounds committee. i attended one of the meetings were this was the topic. it was just those committee members. it was and augmented meeting. maybe with a little more emphasis, this topic is coming. we are all very aware that this is the time to speak up and offer your suggestions. i think i might have been rolling through but i decided to sit and stay for the meeting. commissioner mendoza: i think it would be worth having this
discussion, buildings and grounds. one of the things we want to consider is not necessarily reopening the position we cut, but to think about what position we do need. i do not think it necessarily has to be the position that was held by the previous staff member. i wanted to be really clear about that. president yee: the next one would be k20 and k21. would you like to take them together or separate? >> together. i was confused because the descriptions are similar, of the two items. they are both significant large amounts of money. i wanted to get more understanding of how they differ and what they are for. >> before mr. heinrich speaks, i
do not know if he has come. he is our director of networking and infrastructure on the i.t. team. we have someone on paternity leave and mr. heinrich is acting at -- as chief technology officer. he is doing a fantastic job and he will demonstrate that in a minute. >> you are the one who sends the spam alert. >> thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity to meet you this evening. in response to your concern, i agree, given the wording, it is difficult to interpret the
difference between these resolutions. the key difference is in k-21, you will notice the term back up and archiving. these are the solutions you have. one component is storing a thelive data. the amounts are similar because you need a similar-sized solution to archive and back of that data. this meets our retention needs for long-term, historical data. between these resolutions. the key difference is in k-21, you will notice the term back up and archiving. these are the solutions you have. one component is storing a thelive data. the amounts are similar because you need a similar-sized solution to archive and back of that data. >> thank you for explaining that. president yee: great job. roll call please. student delegate tom: yes. commissioner fewer: yes. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner mendoza: yes. commissioner murase: aye. vice president norton: aye. commissioner wynns: aye. president yee: aye. item k-92. i severd this.
when i was listening to the remarks of dennis kelly, i was confused with the relationship between his remarks and this particular item. i wanted an explanation. >> there is no relationship. [laughter] president yee: that is simple. i would like to see if the superintendent can -- that takes care of this item. i would also like to have an explanation of some sort of what mr. kelly was talking about in terms of people not give in theirpars. you do not have to say it here. superintendent garcia: we will look into that. i cannot speak for anyone else in the room, but that is the first i have heard about it.
do you know anything about it? would you rather send a memo to the board about what is going on? >> i can do that. there has been discussion over the last few weeks about this. superintendent garcia: could we follow up and give it to the board? president yee: thank you. student delegate tom: yes. commissioner fewer: yes. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner murase: aye. vice president norton: aye. commissioner wynns: aye. president yee: aye. we are finished with this item. item q, superintendents proposals for first reading. this would be 126-12sp1,
adoption of fiscal year 2012- 2013 recommended budget. could i have a motion and a second? we will be referring this item to the special meeting of the board. >> it will be the government and budget and then a special meeting. president yee: this budget will be heard at a special meeting. got it. where is it going to go? it will be next tuesday, the 19th. we will post a time for that as soon as we determine what time we can do this. is this allowed for public comment or do i do that later?
clarification? ok. let's have the presentation first. >> deputy superintendent, is your plan to do a brief presentation since we are going to spend a significant amount of time on tuesday? >> it sounds like that would be the right approach. >> ok. i am just asking for a point of clarification. president yee: we have some information. we will refer to this information at the next meeting. thank you. >> he did a lot of work on that. president yee: ok, would you
like to make a public comment on this? >> i would like to encourage the board to review those. >> there is no presentation today then. president yee: that is going to be next week. >> i am going to object to that. we purposely changed the rules for the board so that we could treat this as an agendized item because we wanted people to pay attention to budget, not on the night that we vote for it, but to be thinking about it and participate in the process. i have tried to review this. i like having people tell me what they think. this is the most serious decision that we make and i do not think we should treat it
like any other thing that we vote on. >> i would agree, actually. the deputy superintendent went to the trouble of making a presentation. members of the public did come to attend this discussion. this is the most -- i agree. this is the most important thing that we do and we should give its due diligence. president yee: ok. we are going to reverse that decision and have a presentation of the budget. >> ok, commissioners, back by popular demand, we will try to go through this, maybe some sort of compromise.
we will hit the highlights and go through some of the information fairly quickly. some of it you have seen before. this will serve a couple of purposes. the first is to provide information to the board that you have not heard before. also, to provide information to the public that will be posted on our web site, as it always is. for people to have some semblance of stand-alone information. those things, i will go through quickly tonight and we can elaborate on the meeting next tuesday. i wanted to start with a set of guiding principles. these are similar to the guiding principles we have used for the last two years in the budget development process. i think that they are as important as they have ever been. i want to acknowledge coleman advocates for developing a lot